Singing with Crows explores the intersections of religion with politics and with our common life.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Marriage Equality Comes to Pennsylvania

When U.S. District Judge John E.
Jones, III, recently issued his decision overturning Pennsylvania’s ban on
same-sex marriage, reactions from religious communities were quite varied.The morning after the ruling was made public,
and even before Governor Corbett announced that he would not appeal, Pastor
Anne Mason of the Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Lancaster appeared on
the front page of the morning paper offering free weddings to any couple who
contacted the church office that day.Interfaith minister Rev. Kelly Jo Singleton soon followed with a similar
offer.They greeted the news with
unequivocal celebration.

Following publication of these
expressions of support, the U-U church office received several phone messages
decrying their action and stating, among other things, that they were all going
to hell.Though no specific threats were
included in any of the messages, the congregation requested the presence of
Silent Witness Peacekeeper Alliance members on the day of the weddings just in
case any protesters showed up and tried to disrupt the events.

As I have written before, Silent
Witnesses, when asked, stand as a barrier between anti-gay protesters and
“street preachers,” and GLBTQ folks attending festivals, memorial services, and
other public events.Our intent is to
defuse any potential confrontations, respecting the first amendment rights of
the protesters while presenting a welcoming and protective presence for the
GLBTQ community.Fortunately there was
no harassment or attempted disruption of the seven weddings held on that first
Saturday.

Randall Wenger, an attorney representing the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization dedicated to supporting “traditional
families,” noted that “the ruling on gay marriage alters the marriage
paradigm,” changing it “from a child-centered institution [to] an
adult-centered institution.” He also claimed that “[t]oday’s decision threatens
the rights of those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”

The PFI, through its associated organization, the
Pennsylvania Family Council, is loosely affiliated with the Family Research
Council, which states on its website, “Family Policy Councils (FPCs) accomplish
at the state level what Family Research Council does at the national level - shape
public debate and formulate public policy.”On both the state and national levels, this network of organizations has
actively opposed extending civil rights to same-sex couples.Though they are incorporated as a non-profit
rather than a religious organization, their materials draw heavily on a
literalist reading of the Bible in making their arguments.Because of its use of defamatory and
demonstrably false statements, the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the national organization, but not the state-level council, as an anti-gay hate
group.

Writing in the Lancaster Sunday News from
the Roman Catholic perspective, the Rev. Peter Hahn tried to articulate a
middle way, arguing, “Marriage is first and foremost a Sacrament of the Church
and it is the authority of God, not of the state, that governs its
administration.Can states provide for
‘civil unions’ or other legal means that help provide for legal benefits to
those in ‘same-sex’ relationships? Indeed, they can.”In this view the term “marriage” is to be
restricted to religious usage, while a separate structure is to be established
to provide legal protection to those couples whom the church deems ineligible
for marriage.Such “separate but equal”
arrangements present their own challenges, not least of which was the rejection
of a similar argument during the struggle to end racial segregation in public
schools.

One thing that needs to be pointed
out here is that, from a religious standpoint, a number of denominations,
including the Roman Catholic Church, exercise clear restrictions on who they
will marry.No clergyperson can be
legally compelled to perform a marriage ceremony with which that person
disagrees.That has always been the
case, and it will not change with the current ruling regarding same-sex
marriage.

Quite a few faith groups will not
marry a person who has been married and divorced unless the previous spouse is
deceased.I have heard several
divorced-and-remarried former Catholics mention that, in the eyes of their
former church, they are “living in sin” and not truly married.I suspect that some other denominations may
take the same position, and they have a perfect legal right to do so.But never have I heard of attempts by
religious groups that do not recognize such marriages to encode their
restrictive views into civil law and to deny the right of marriage to those who
do not share their position.

In this regard the situation of
same-sex couples desiring to wed is more like that of interracial couples prior
to 1967, when the Supreme Court, in deciding Loving v. Virginia, struck down
the Commonwealth of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law and similar laws in
fifteen other states.Such laws not only
forbade interracial marriage but imposed severe criminal penalties on couples
who broke them.The judge who originally
sentenced the Lovings for their crime of returning to live in Virginia after being
legally married in Washington, D.C., made obvious the religious nature of the
ban, stating in his opinion, “Almighty God created the races white, black,
yellow, malay (sic) and red, and he placed them on separate continents.... The
fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to
mix.”

In the same way that in the 19th
century many Christian ministers argued that the Bible supported slavery, and
in the 20th century that segregation of the races in public and
private life was God’s will, the early years of the 21st century
have seen opposition from Christian and other faith groups to the extension of
full civil rights to those who differ from the majority in sexual orientation
and gender expression.The number
holding this view is dwindling but still forms a considerable vocal presence in
our country.

Perhaps most disturbing is the idea
expressed in a letter to the editor published in the June 5 edition of the
Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era.That letter began, “It’s a sad day for our country when Judge John E.
Jones III’s justification to legalize same-sex marriage was based on our
Constitution rather than on God’s word.”The clear implication is that the author of the letter would prefer a judiciary
that decides cases on religious rather than constitutional grounds.One must ask, which God, and whose
interpretation of that God’s word?Taken
to its logical conclusion, such a course could well lead to the kind of
dystopia described by Margaret Atwood in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” or even more
gruesomely, to the real-life conditions in countries like Saudi Arabia and
Uganda.

On Monday June 9, Judge Jones
appeared on WITF-FM’s interview and discussion program “Smart Talk.”When interviewer Scott LaMar asked why Jones,
as a Federal Judge, would take the rather unusual step of participating in a
broadcast interview, the judge replied that he viewed it as an opportunity to
educate the public about the judiciary.Later in the interview, in response to a question emailed in by a
listener, Judge Jones warned against conflating religion and the law, declaring,
“If you have certain religious beliefs that cause you to embrace a position
that ultimately is found to run afoul of the Constitution of the United States,
the Constitution wins.” The complete interview can be heard here.

We live in a contentious and
unsettled time.Religious communities,
unless they choose a life separate from society like the Amish or cloistered nuns
and monks, cannot help but be caught up in difficult transitions.Some will embrace a new revelation while
others hold tightly to what they have always known.It is the task of our civil authorities to
seek the common good, with justice and equality for all.The constitution requires both that
individuals be free to believe and worship as they wish and that no belief or
practice be forced on those who do not share it.

In the case of same-sex marriage, our
courts are moving toward the understanding that the religious beliefs of some
cannot serve as an impediment to extending civil rights to everyone.It’s an understanding that not all are yet
willing to embrace.No matter where each
of us is on this journey, may we walk humbly, keeping in mind that none of us
has perfect understanding, and that those with whom we fervently disagree are
also beloved children of God.

About Me

My interest in religions of the world was awakened by early reading of Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology; nurtured by classes in literature, comparative religion, and cultural anthropology at Susquehanna University; and expanded and refined during the decade that I spent earning an MAR at Lancaster Theological Seminary. While standing firmly in the progressive Protestantism of the present-day Moravian Church, I welcome opportunities for ecumenical and interfaith interaction.
My commitment to peacemaking and justice advocacy has guided my entire adulthood. My love of music and participation in music-making are life-long passions.
Most of the articles posted here were published originally in my regular column "Musings" for our local newspaper.